A reminder of what is at stake

[Andy Clark]

Andy said..."In short, this would equate to....

 

.... A system must be in place to ensure that trees are to be surveyed/inspected/managed according to their level of ascertained risk, by persons whose qualifications/competency corresponds to that particular risk level...."

 

I dont want to derail the thread and get onto inspections again...(.the point I am avoiding is made by andy in the above quote).....Essentially tho' i think there is no act that can void liability.

'LPA, as under the Dept for Communities and Local Govt, they are the primary portfolio holder for responsibility of "AMENITY" trees."

 

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't just trying to turn this into a surveying issue (hense the use of the word 'management' also), more trying to say that all anyone can do, is be aware of and try and cover ALL angles, rather than utilise loopholes in one in order to alleviate another.

[Amelanchier]

Don't get me wrong, i may be mistaken, but surely the LPA AND DCLG (by implication) are the responsible forces behind upholding and ensuring compliance with CROW 2000?

 

Therefore, should the onus not come down to them, to issue guidance/info/advice on how best to comply??

 

Well it was the "Countryside Agency" which is now Natural England who are responsible for designating Access Land.

 

CROW 2000 simply removes the liability for certain hazards in certain areas - there's nothing to comply with!